Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[Halifax Tar]

There were definitely some nuances missed in the article, and I would agree that the approach is unnecessarily confrontational.  However, there is a very valid underlying truth in what she is saying which I and many others have raised in this thread before, and articulated in great detail.

I think where we differ here is that I don't see people who were conscripted or enrolled for the duration of hostilities as true reservists.  These people were enrolled to complete a task, to put it most simply.  This is not a slight on the reserves or a chest pumping for permanent force of the time.  Its just they way it was.

First, I think you are incorrectly conflating the concept of a "Regular Force" as we understand it today with full time service of any kind, and you are further conflating the Regular Force of today with that of WW1 and WW2.  The Army at the outbreak WW1 was the militia and its members were citizen soldiers, almost to a man.  The relatively small pre-war professional army (or Regular force) was structured to meet the training and administrative needs of that part time component.

Agreed, that's just history.  I am aware of those nuances but in the spirit of the article I spoke using the same level.

In the case of WW2, the militia was far more than just a recruiting base. The 40,000 man militia (and its citizen soldiers) provided the critical base and structure for force expansion, not the Regular Force.  Militia leaders also had a key role in training that expanding force, though many of the senior leaders (LCol and above) were too old for active campaigning, so they were replaced by other (younger) citizen soldiers who signed on for the duration of hostilities, not for career-long service in a professional army. 

Again hostilities only pers were not reserve or permanent force, they were hostilities only people.

Do we tie our success in WW1 or WW2 to the Reserve Force?  Of course we don't.  As you say, these were national efforts from a political, military and economic standpoint.  However, I would offer that it was incorrect to minimize the role of the part time force and the citizen soldier in those achievements, and it would have been nice if that had made it into the national dialog. 

No one is minimizing anything.  I find it strange that the Army as a certain level of two way distrust between the Reg and Res force.  I have experienced this a few times.  We don't seem to share this sideways glance with our RCN reserve folks.  Not sure about the RCAF.

Turning to the argument for institutional support for the PRes in the present day, the RegF may have been able to sustain the 4000 troop commitment in Afghanistan on its own in terms of overall troop numbers, but as organized throughout the conflict, it was unable to do so.  You talk about guys chomping at the bit to go, and I am sure there was a lot of that on an individual level.  However, the reality is that every unit which deployed to Afghanistan required massive cross-unit augmentation (including at least one full Rifle Coy equivalent for every Battle Group, Op Res, and numerous individuals), and this augmentation included a significant PRes component on the order of 20% of the force.  The force as a whole was burning out by 2011, and it would have burned out a lot sooner if not for the PRes.  No one (Christy included) is arguing that it was a PRes show, but the contribution was required as part of a team effort.

Perhaps you missed my post.  You are right augmentation happened, it was forced.  I had a very long chat with the NSE RSM about this in Cyprus.  I had no idea, at that time, that billets were divided up between different commands, the majority obviously with the assembling brigade and the remainder spread to other commands and reserve organizations.  I continually ran into antimosity during work up training from people in 2 CMBG who wanted to go but couldn't because augmentees had taken billets, in their minds they saw it that way.  My point isn't to down play the excellent showing many reservists displayed in AFG.  My point is that augmentation was forced

By their very nature, any part time force will require support from a full time component.  If we were to look to our western allies, most Reserve forces have both a full-time reserve component and institutional support from the "professional force".  Ultimately, if you are looking for a PRes track record, it is really only fair to assess the force against the tasks they have been assigned, and there are plenty of examples of the PRes meeting its obligations:

Op LENTUS (2014-Present)- Short notice individual and Pl sized augmentation. 
Op LENTUS 2013 - 400+ reservists deployed at 24 hrs notice for a week-long local DOMOP using local resources almost exclusively.
B.C. Fires 2004 - 600+ Reservists deployed over a month long domestic operation, forming multiple battalion sized task forces.
Ice Storms 1998 - Hundreds of reservists deployed on short notice. 
Op PALLADIUM - Composite PRes Rifle Coys for Rotos 11 and 12, and significant augmentation throughout.
Op HARMONY - Significant PRes augmentation.  Anecdotally, I have read that some Rifle Coys had as much as 50% PRes augmentation. 

Again you seem to think that I am talking down the Army reserve.  In fact would like to see them more independent and responsible for their own tasks.  Right now every one of those examples you provided were held together by a regular force foundation and core that ensured the success of those OPs.  I would like to see the reveres be given an Op in its entirety and have them be successful with it, this should be the goal

I would offer that given current levels of resourcing (appx 6% of the defence budget including equipment, RSS PYs, infrastructure, etc.) and institutional prioritization, the Government is getting great value out of its PRes.  However, it would be hard pressed to do more without significant reforms and some further investment. However, that shouldn't invalidate contributions made so far, or the potential for increased PRes involvement in a re-balanced force.

Again no one is invalidating.  The fact is that the reg force has, can and will again have to deploy, domestically or internationally, on a moments notice.  Until such time as the reserves can maintain that level readiness in useful numbers the lions share of funding should go to the regulars.  IMHO.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Some reservists (myself included) completed a year of high readiness training prior to deployment of Afg.

I did this as well.  Most of it was holding down pic-nic tables and time allotted to reservist could catch up on training, no slight intended just being honest.  I remember how horrible their pay was.  They were all paid a flat rate of 2400$ a month until someone in Ottawa could sort their pay out, this took some time.  We hadone guy go home on weekend leave as Cpl and come back a MCpl fully unexpected, this caused all kinds rank/position problems.  I have also deployed to AFG with 2 weeks of work up training, I much preferred the 2 weeks.  

We're not going to find an Oxford definition of a "citizen soldier".  We're all citizens.  However, I still think it useful to differentiate the professional force (those who will spend their working lives in the full time paid service of the crown) from those who live in both worlds, serving in a part time capacity and/or full time for a finite period of time when required by the nation.  Regardless of the length of service, the citizen soldiers of WW1 and WW2 still went home when the war was over.

See, I don't define you, a reservist, as a citizen soldier.  You are a part time pro, Semi-Pro if you will , A citizen soldier to me is the person who is compelled into military service either by force or their own beliefs and is at it for a defined task, say WW1 and WW2.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would also challenge you on the proportion of the RegF on a 3 year (or shorter) VIE. As I understand it, only combat arms privates would be on that kind of TOS.  Even assuming a high proportion of short term TOS, everyone who joins does so with the knowledge that they could complete their career in full time service if they chose.  To me, those are the employment terms of professional, not citizen soldiers. 

Its my understanding that initial TOS are now 5 years.  But I could be wrong.

The Canadian "Militia Myth" was about an erroneous conception of the average Canadian as a woodsman inherently suited to soldiering without significant military training which is quite different from what you are talking about.

 

[mariomike]

Canadian soldiers spent years in training and preparation before invading.

From what I have read,

Infinite delay provided infinite time for the Russian army and the Wehrmacht to destroy - or at least fatally weaken - each other.
Meanwhile, Britain ( including Canada ) and America bombed Germany.

 

[MilEME09]

Atleast we didnt go through with Operation Unthinkable

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[RCPalmer]

That the Reg F was doing the same suggests fundamental failings in readiness of the Reg F.  I'd suggest that if we maintain part of the military - Reg or Res - at a state of readiness that takes a year or more to prepare them for deployment, then we are failing badly.

A Res F cannot be the Reg F - nor should we expect them to be so on deployment.  Know the skills that are trained and maintained, and employ people appropriately.  If leadership can't handle that, get better leaders.

Agree.

A solider mobilized in Sept 1939 would have served six years or more; most VIEs fall within that range. 

My point (made abruptly, I'll admit) was that the traditional myth of the "Canadian citizen dropped his lumberjack axe, picked up a rifle, and singlehandedly repelled the Hun and took back Europe" is false; equally false is the "Existing citizen soldiers immediately liberated Europe".  Canadian soldiers spent years in training and preparation before invading.

I think we are in pretty violent agreement here...

I think we're in violent agreement on both the history and the contemporary considerations. 

 

[MilEME09]

OK.  Why?  What are the pro's and con's of their system over ours?  Would this help recruitment, retention or be negative to it if someone who intended to be a Cl A type only, with a full time civilian job, was told they would HAVE to parade on dates XYZ and they *might* have to deploy for 1/2 a year in that 5 year timeframe?  (Example of things to consider)

For it to work perfectly we would obviously need reform to laws governing time off for military duties. However I am in the mind set that the reserves is still a job, 1 evening a week, and one weekend a month is not a large commitment to make(FYI I'm a shift worker and work weekends but still request time off for training). In the British system you can still miss training however unlike our just don't show up and give an excuse later, they have to request permission to be excused from training for a period. Example I was given is the member in question requested and was approved for a exemption for his wedding and honeymoon. One issue it solves is attendance for sure, I keep hearing "you want cool training, tell people to show up", if everyone will be there, CoC always knows numbers for rations, vehicles needed for EX, etc...

The number of troops dagging green in the PRes would increase, while I admit it would put a strain on a members personal and professional lives, we do sign up to do this and accept the level of commitment.

 

[daftandbarmy]

For it to work perfectly we would obviously need reform to laws governing time off for military duties. However I am in the mind set that the reserves is still a job, 1 evening a week, and one weekend a month is not a large commitment to make(FYI I'm a shift worker and work weekends but still request time off for training). In the British system you can still miss training however unlike our just don't show up and give an excuse later, they have to request permission to be excused from training for a period. Example I was given is the member in question requested and was approved for a exemption for his wedding and honeymoon. One issue it solves is attendance for sure, I keep hearing "you want cool training, tell people to show up", if everyone will be there, CoC always knows numbers for rations, vehicles needed for EX, etc...

The number of troops dagging green in the PRes would increase, while I admit it would put a strain on a members personal and professional lives, we do sign up to do this and accept the level of commitment.

It's not really rocket surgery...

If you plan good training that is incrementally more challenging, builds on previous knowledge and success and aims to be ready for a large scale, culminating exercise of some sort (and are consistent in ensuring that it happens when we said it would happen) then people will turn up. This training does not need to include helicopters, parachuting, submersibles, or hover technology. For example, good old section attacks are a real crowd pleaser when done properly with enough ammo etc.

If we move away from this well proven approach, failures of various kinds will occur and troops will vote with their feet.

Simples....

 

[Brasidas]

It's not really rocket surgery...

If you plan good training that is incrementally more challenging, builds on previous knowledge and success and aims to be ready for a large scale, culminating exercise of some sort (and are consistent in ensuring that it happens when we said it would happen) then people will turn up....

And then someone, somewhere in div overspends, then all units are told to shut down. Then six weeks later, after someone changes their mind, the tap gets turned back on after folks have made other plans.

It might be simple, but simple is difficult.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Under our current system, you need to market the job and fulfill those promises. Maybe certain individuals are annoyed that the PRes personal get a vote by showing up or not, but that's life and if you don't provide decent training, decent equipment and some decent organization, why will people waste their time? It's more remarkable that people do show up and continue to try to make things works, despite the best efforts of the organization to frustrate them.

 

[Kirkhill]

For it to work perfectly we would obviously need reform to laws governing time off for military duties. However I am in the mind set that the reserves is still a job, 1 evening a week, and one weekend a month is not a large commitment to make(FYI I'm a shift worker and work weekends but still request time off for training). In the British system you can still miss training however unlike our just don't show up and give an excuse later, they have to request permission to be excused from training for a period. Example I was given is the member in question requested and was approved for a exemption for his wedding and honeymoon. One issue it solves is attendance for sure, I keep hearing "you want cool training, tell people to show up", if everyone will be there, CoC always knows numbers for rations, vehicles needed for EX, etc...

The number of troops dagging green in the PRes would increase, while I admit it would put a strain on a members personal and professional lives, we do sign up to do this and accept the level of commitment.

I believe that the system is currently designed around finding people willing to volunteer their time and then paying them when they show up.

I think that if you paid people for their time and then demanded they show up you would get a different response.

Currently you are relying on people who want to help out then discover that they can't because of life (job, family).  If, however, you contracted with people up front then they would have to seek out employment (part time or otherwise) that would allow them to keep their commitments.  In order for that to happen you have to make the up front payout, and the back end reward, worthwhile so as to convince people to put the rest of their life on hold for three to seven years.

That is my sense of the US system.  You get enlisted.  You get paid.  You get trained. You get released subject to recall.  You can continue with education or seasonal work or part time work or work for sympathetic employers.  But when the bell rings you are liable to show up regardless of your other commitments.  Your service commitment is priority. 

Once you have served out your hitch other goodies fall your way: education, medical, taxes, relocation.....continuing service, preference on some jobs.

 

[George Wallace]

Chris

Most Reservists are more than happy to do the Courses.  Unfortunately, as you say, life and work do come into play; and with people in positions where they are Course Loading or Scheduling courses as if they were dealing with Regular Force members, the system will continue to fail.  You can give a Reg Force member short notice to attend a course.  You can't with Reservists.  Many Reservists need a minimum of six months notice to attend courses, so they can arrange with family, employers, school, etc. for the time to attend.  I have seen too many instances where the "Reg Force Mentality" has come into play and people have Course Loaded Reservists with little or no notice.  Of course, the Reservists, unless unemployed, had to refuse the course.

I had a City Police officer who needed a minimum of six months to book his leave.  He was loaded on a two month course in the Reserves after scheduling his Leave and Court Dates.  The Course was moved to the Left one day, and that meant that he could no longer attend.  Crap like that should not happen.  Fix the DATES for the Course and stick to them, and give the candidates a good lead time to make their preparations to attend.

 

[RocketRichard]

Chris

Most Reservists are more than happy to do the Courses.  Unfortunately, as you say, life and work do come into play; and with people in positions where they are Course Loading or Scheduling courses as if they were dealing with Regular Force members, the system will continue to fail.  You can give a Reg Force member short notice to attend a course.  You can't with Reservists.  Many Reservists need a minimum of six months notice to attend courses, so they can arrange with family, employers, school, etc. for the time to attend.  I have seen too many instances where the "Reg Force Mentality" has come into play and people have Course Loaded Reservists with little or no notice.  Of course, the Reservists, unless unemployed, had to refuse the course.

I had a City Police officer who needed a minimum of six months to book his leave.  He was loaded on a two month course in the Reserves after scheduling his Leave and Court Dates.  The Course was moved to the Left one day, and that meant that he could no longer attend.  Crap like that should not happen.  Fix the DATES for the Course and stick to them, and give the candidates a good lead time to make their preparations to attend.

Well said George.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kirkhill]

George, I'm not going to argue with the need for the Training System to be on their game and understand the needs of their clients (the Forces and the Volunteers - full time or part time).  From reading these boards over the years it is apparent that the managing of human resources is a soup sandwich at all levels.  Possibly/Probably worse than the procurement issue.

The issue that I have is that I believe that the current system is ineffective at producing effectives in large numbers.  Regulars are, frankly too expensive to rely on them for all our defence needs and the Militia/Reserve system produces neither numbers nor effectives.

And that is not to disparage any service member in uniform.

My suggestion is based on what I see in the US where Guard and Reserve personnel are enticed into a system that rewards them well but also requires a commitment from them.  They are free to live on the economy but they also have to be careful what commitments they make outside their military service.

They know that they will be away for 11 weeks and then be liable for weekend service and summer training.  The system knows that those bodies will be showing up on such and such dates and must be accommodated and utilized.  The volunteers also know that they are going to have to find employers who don't need them for those days.  I would suggest that means virtually anybody that is not tied to an assembly line job.  Trades people.  Part-timers. Seasonal workers. And yes students.  All of those people are likely to be more flexible in finding opportunities to accommodate service.

On the other hand, if the military weren't built around "band camp"  (  ;D ) but was, instead organized on a year round, multiple intake system then it would also make it easier for people to find slots to fit with their lives. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Wild hair thought:

Is it in any way obvious to anybody that the system has improved with the elimination of the positions of Adjutant-General and Master-General of Ordnance?

 

[runormal]

The issue that I have is that I believe that the current system is ineffective at producing effectives in large numbers.  Regulars are, frankly too expensive to rely on them for all our defence needs and the Militia/Reserve system produces neither numbers nor effectives.

Agreed, at least on the reserve side. Barring a major conflict, I will not be able to deploy. I either need to find a different job, or I need to accept the career implications. However, if I'm going to take a career hit, I might as well go reg-f. This also doesn't solve our problem..

My suggestion is based on what I see in the US where Guard and Reserve personnel are enticed into a system that rewards them well but also requires a commitment from them.  They are free to live on the economy but they also have to be careful what commitments they make outside their military service.

They know that they will be away for 11 weeks and then be liable for weekend service and summer training.  The system knows that those bodies will be showing up on such and such dates and must be accommodated and utilized.  The volunteers also know that they are going to have to find employers who don't need them for those days.  I would suggest that means virtually anybody that is not tied to an assembly line job.  Trades people.  Part Timers. Seasonal workers. And yes students.  All of those people are likely to be more flexible in finding opportunities to accommodate service.

While this is all fine and dandy, where do these magical employers exist? I've also hinted at seasonal employers, but from my from limited experience it seems that the army "Shuts down" on a large scale between November and March. Which is when all our construction workers, farmers, and trades people would be available. If I'm wrong, correct me. So even if we adopted your model, our students would still be available and so would our part Timers/under employed reservists. Why change the system? In fact it would put more strain on people like myself, who have full time jobs.

Does the system work right now? Fuck No. I have subordinates who still don't know if they have will work for RST. Despite emails that both the member and myself have been submitting since February.

Training is something that baffles me, here is the notice that I've received:
Basic - weekends (less than 24 hours notice)
SQ (2 weeks)
Dp1 (4 days notice)
DVR Whl - weekends (1 Day)
MSVS - weekends (4 months) - this surprised me.

I'm blown away at how difficult it is organize a course. Case in point is ACISS Dp 1.0. It is a 2 month long course that has be run from July to August, in order to accommodate both university and highschool students.

Why then the difficulty in planning and organizing the dates? We know roughly how many candidates we will have because of the SIP. So why can't students get the dates in January?

 

[MilEME09]

Why then the difficulty in planning and organizing the dates? We know roughly how many candidates we will have because of the SIP. So why can't students get the dates in January?

I think if the tried to run courses in the winter they would be surprised how many people would actually be able to attend. I know winter is my only shot at PLQ unless I quit my job.

 

[mariomike]

While this is all fine and dandy, where do these magical employers exist?

Some employers have a - paid - Military Leave Policy.

Employees can take a leave of absence with pay, for the two week period of absence, to attend the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Training Program.

Employees are paid their regular pay provided they submit any compensation received for military service to the city treasurer.

All benefits continue during the leave.

An employee's service is not affected by the leave. An employee's vacation entitlement, and pension credit do not change.

See also,

Reservists Job Protection Superthread 
20 pages.

 

[MilEME09]

Some employers have a - paid - Military Leave Policy.

Employees can take a leave of absence with pay, for the two week period of absence, to attend the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Training Program.

Employees are paid their regular pay provided they submit any compensation received for military service to the city treasurer.

All benefits continue during the leave.

An employee's service is not affected by the leave. An employee's vacation entitlement, and pension credit do not change.

See also,

Reservists Job Protection Superthread 
20 pages.

The best policies I've seen are are all public sector jobs, even the largest companies I've worked for didn't have a military policy, perhaps a small step forward would be to legislate that companies of a certain size (as to not create problems for small business's) must have a leave policy, even if it is just whats stated under provincial rules.

 

[mariomike]

The best policies I've seen are are all public sector jobs,

That is the Military Service Policy where I worked. Others may vary.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The best policies I've seen are are all public sector jobs, even the largest companies I've worked for didn't have a military policy, perhaps a small step forward would be to legislate that companies of a certain size (as to not create problems for small business's) must have a leave policy, even if it is just whats stated under provincial rules.

Exactly. And you have hit upon one of the hobby horses I've been riding for a few years: we should target our recruiting efforts at various levels of government (municipal, provincial, federal) across the country primarily because these work places have leave policies that are reservist friendly.